• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, good and evil looked remarkably similar to the good and evil we see in our world today. Of course, most of the species, planetary systems, and technological gadgets are foreign to us living in the twenty-first century, but the basic values of democracy, equality, and justice are the same. And the epic hero, the Jedi Knight, shares the same characteristics of the warrior hero in Western culture since the Homeric Age. He’s a brave and skilled fighter devoted to a just cause, and, above all, a master over his mind and body. These common values at play in Star Wars allow the story to speak to us, despite such an unfamiliar backdrop.

But something else comes to light when the backdrop involves intergalactic travel, the power of the Force, Death Stars, the Dagobah System, Wookiees, Ewoks, and Gungans. We find that the Star Wars galaxy reveals a rich approach to environmental ethics—one quite relevant for issues in our own world. Environmental ethics is a branch of philosophy which uses ethical theories to solve very practical matters concerning animals, plants, and the environment as a whole. Now the environmental ethic at work in Star Wars is probably not readily apparent. After all, the Rebel Alliance concerns itself with only the humanist values of democracy and freedom. And the Jedi Knights, guardians of peace and justice, exemplars of all that is good, don’t seem all that concerned for animals or the environment. What set of values then can account for restoring balance to the Force which somehow includes all the different creatures, cultures, and planets? This issue requires our attention to the fact that the Force is indeed a living Force. And here, as Yoda would say, the answer to our question, we will find.

Wookiees and Mynocks and Hutts, Oh My!

Environmental ethics is concerned with the proper relationship between humans and their environment. Generally it asks what our responsibilities are beyond the human community and whether we owe ethical treatment to nonhuman animals, plants, and ecosystems. A central issue then is just what kind of value animals, plants, and ecosystems have: intrinsic value (as goods in themselves) or mere instrumental value (insofar as they’re useful for something else). Some environmental ethicists argue that the environment has instrumental value only. While humans may have intrinsic value, we give value to other nonhuman things by virtue of our valuing them. So everything from cell phones to lightsabers to the Mona Lisa has value only because humans deem it to. These environmental ethicists urge us to see that the environment offers us tremendous goods (food, oxygen, aesthetic enjoyment, and more) which are instrumental in pursuing our goals, but not in infinite supply. Thus, to protect our long-term interests and those of future generations, we should work to preserve the environment.

Other philosophers argue that this “resource management” approach misses the point of an environmental ethic. It’s criticized for being yet another “anthropocentric ethic,” which unjustly places humans at the center of what is to be valued.56 One such critic is the contemporary philosopher Peter Singer, who agrees with the view that value depends on a conscious being (a valuer), who gives value to things, but disagrees that humans are the only beings who count as conscious valuers. For Singer, ethics is concerned with protecting the interests of others, which essentially requires working to increase others’ pleasure and alleviate their suffering. And he holds that “consciousness, or the capacity for subjective experience, is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for having an interest.”57 This means that to have an interest, one must be capable of feeling (being consciously aware of) pleasure and pain. But of course many nonhuman animals have this ability. Animals too are conscious valuers and have interests—at the very least the interest to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Humans thus owe animals decent and humane treatment, just